im to regard the actions of a being which, both
with Leibnitz and himself, is (to use his own expression)
an automaton spirituale, as deserving a fiery indignation
and everlasting vengeance.

____

* Since these words were written a book [Refutation lnedite
de Spinoza. Par Leibnitz. Precedee d'une Memoire,
par Foucher de Carell. Paris. 1854.] has appeared in Paris
by an able disciple of Leibnitz, which, although it does not lead
us to modify the opinion expressed in them, yet obliges us to give
our reasons for speaking as we do. M. de Careil has discovered
in the library at Hanover a MS. in the handwriting of Leibnitz,
containing a series of remarks on the book of a certain John
Wachter. It does not appear who this John Wachter was, nor
by what accident he came to have so distinguished a critic. If we
may judge by the extracts at present before us, he seems to have
been an absurd and extravagant person, who had attempted to
combine the theology of the Cabbala with the very little which
he was able to understand of the philosophy of Spinoza; and, as
far as he is concerned, neither his writings nor the reflections upon
them are of interest to any human being. The extravagance of
Spinoza's followers, however, furnished Leibnitz with an
opportunity of noticing the points on which he most disapproved of
Spinoza himself; and these few notices M. de Caroil has now
for the first time published as "The Refutation of Spinoza. by
Leibnitz." They are exceedingly brief and scanty; and the writer
of them would assuredly have hesitated to describe an imperfect
criticism by so ambitious a title. The modern editor, however,
must be allowed the privilege of a worshipper, and we will not
quarrel with him for an exaggerated estimate of what his master
had accomplished. We are indebted to his enthusiasm for what
is at least a curious discovery, and we will not qualify the gratitude
which he has earned by industry and good will. At the same
time, the notes themselves confirm the opinion which we have
always entertained, that Leibnitz did not understand Spinoza.
Leibnitz did not understand him, and the followers of Leibnitz
do not understand him now. If he were no more than what he
is described in the book before us.--if his metaphysics were
"miserable," if his philosophy was absurd, and he himself nothing
more than a second-rate disciple of Descartes,--we can assure
M. de Caroil that we should long ago have heard the last of him.

The